Utilizing Genetic Diversity for Maize Improvement: Strategies and Success Stories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Utilizing genetic diversity for maize improvement is crucial for enhancing agricultural productivity and addressing climate change. As a major global crop, maize's genetic diversity is key to improving disease resistance, stress tolerance, and yield. This study reviews the sources of maize genetic diversity, including wild relatives, landraces, germplasm banks, and synthetic populations, and explores the main strategies for using these resources for maize improvement. These strategies include introgression breeding, heterosis breeding, marker-assisted breeding, genome-wide association studies (GWAS), genomic selection (GS), and CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing technology. Through case studies, the study demonstrates the successful application of these strategies in enhancing disease resistance, stress tolerance, nutritional quality, and yield in maize. The aim is to integrate traditional and modern breeding methods to propose future research directions for maize genetic improvement, providing new ideas and methods for maize variety improvement to meet global food demand and agricultural sustainability challenges. The significance of the research lies in providing a scientific basis for increasing maize productivity, economic benefits, and biodiversity conservation, promoting sustainable agricultural development.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".